- From: Booth, David (HP Software - Boston) <dbooth@hp.com>
- Date: Fri, 5 May 2006 01:00:17 -0400
- To: "Pat Hayes" <phayes@ihmc.us>, "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>
- Cc: <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>
> From: Pat Hayes > . . . > Seems to me that in cases like this we can just agree to identify a > piece of text with any *constant* function from some domain to that > piece of text, particularly if the only access anyone can have to the > function is to call it and get the value of it, i.e. the text, > delivered as a result. Even mathematicians routinely identify > constant functions with their values. So whether a web page is > 'really' a text or is 'really' a constant function from the set of > times (or whatever) to that text seems to me something we can just > agree to disagree about, without it mattering. In fact, even the > publisher of the text and the reader of the text might disagree about > this, without it mattering to either of them. I'll buy that . . . mostly. Except that if some "information resources" are functions from time to data, while others are merely data, I'm left with a nagging question in the back of my mind: I wonder what *else* could be an "information resource"? Given an infinite variety of resources, might there not be a few more kinds that we have neglected, which should also be permitted into this exclusive club called "information resources"? How do we know if we've got them all? On the other hand, if I know that *all* "information resources" are functions from time to data (and nothing else), then I can rest much easier. David Booth
Received on Friday, 5 May 2006 05:00:47 UTC